Why evolution and Christianity cannot logically mesh

I'm not sure how animal pain is off topic in that other thread, but . . .I see where you're going with this--or rather, why you did open this topic.something tells me I won't be posting in this thread anymore, but I guess it depends . . . yeah . . .

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

The thread is "Evolution and (what I understand to be Robins version of traditional) Christianity (to be) cannot logically mesh".I argue that they can. In so doing I assume God and assume Evolution. In assuming God I can point to reason all over the place. We see so as not to bump into things. We communicate so as to share the gospel (for instance). And traditional christianity gives a reason for suffering post-fall. If we come across something for which we cannot (at first flush) see the reason for then it is safe to say (given the multitude of reason already apparent - given our assumption) that there is a reason for it and the problem lies in us not apprehending what that reason it. That is the natural conclusion we should draw given the weight of existing evidence tending towards reason.I'm wondering what Robin actually finds illogical myself to be honest.

OK, your "rational reasons" aren't anything really relevant to the specific point we were discussing.But just because you can make sense of a few things - at least on a superficial level - doesn't mean that the more difficult problems. Now I'll agree that pre-fall suffering isn't a bigger problem than post-fall suffering - but both are huge problems.You see you are actually talking about the limits on what God can do. You actually have to say that every bit of suffering that actually occurs produces some greater benefit that CAN'T be achieved in in any way that involves less suffering - not even God can manage things any better. That's an incredibly strong claim and not one that can be casually assumed.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

The reasoning for post-fall suffering is as clear as day and is not a problem at all. Gods wrath poured out on sin is what is going on. Now a person could say that that seems somewhat extreme a reaction but they would wouldn't they - they are fallen. Or to put it in a less smartass fashion - without knowing the extremity of the significance of sin one is not in a position to say the reaction is extreme. So we are left with:If God says sin is that bad then it is. If this is unacceptable is it only because you say so. We have Gods view vs your view. Thus we either believe you or we believe God. Then we must ask why should we believe you over God.Pre-fall suffering is something I addressed here:http://EvC Forum: Why evolution and Christianity cannot logically mesh -->EvC Forum: Why evolution and Christianity cannot logically meshThat is, suffering is only suffering once God makes man. With no man to consider it as such there is no suffering - just different reactions to stimuli by complicated biological machinery (for TOE on its own holds that all we are is complicated biological machinery. Adding God changes one animal into man). And that idea stretches in to the post-fall era in so far as it concerns animals. Animals don't actually suffer - they remain, unlike us, as complicated biological machines. Machines don't suffer, only man does (for the reason given above)Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I would like to add to that and say that any "unknown purpose" defence suggests that our ideas of the rational and God's rationality are not wholly compatable. This has got to cause all kinds of problems if you are also trying to argue that the Christian god is a just, reasonable or benevolent in any way meaningful to humans.

The only sense I can make of this is that you think either (a) physical pain does not constitute suffering or (b) animals feel no physical pain. They certainly act like they do.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

We are assuming for the sake of discussion Evolution and God and trying to see the illogic.Suffering is something only known to man. Man has a consciousness that animals do not have, self awareness etc. It is illogical to place on animals a sense of suffering (ie: they suffer as we do) if they do not have our consiousness (remember we are accepting God here - thus man is a different order than animals.Yes the animal experiences pain (but let us not suppose that is as human pain - which is suffering). And they react to that. We may even assume a psychological disturbance similar to that which we go under (but we cannot call that suffering either). We would have to be able to remove that which makes us men and experience all this in order to see if that was still suffering. This we patently cannot do.In short, animal suffering is not a grounds for declaring 'can't logically mesh' simply because there is no way to ascertain that what we suppose (they suffer) is the case.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

apparently I will be posting in this thread.as to the no other animals having self-awareness, I'd recommend a look at a few of the higher level mammals--chimps and dolphins come to mind.as to pain--it isn't really suffering. All pain is is a reaction to specific stimuli. When it's hot, you burn, and it's painful. But al that pain is, is a way of letting you know, "hey, get out of the frickin' sun you moron!", or "hey, if you don't move you're gonna die!".I agree with your pain analysis. I disagree with your consciousness analysis--especially the part of God is what makes us human, and different from the other animals. Am I not human (I don't believe in God)?

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Your believing or not doesn't alter the fact that God made you human. Nor does it mean he is not your God as much as mine.The purpose of this discussion is as the thread title. The method for discussion I have assumed with Robin since earlier involves assuming TOEvolution and God (as Robin understands it) are both true.
Then its a case of looking for the illogic.Given those two things, that man is of a different order than animals is also given. So when he suffers he does so in a way that cannot be allied to animals no matter how close physiological aspects can be compared. For man is an animal too but differs in one vital respect.The similarity between man-the-animal and chimp-the animal 'suffering' is to be expected but since we cannot divorce man-the-God-made-being-in-a-similar-to-animal body from the animals we cannot comment on them suffering. To suffer is as far as it is possible to tell purely a human experience. We cannot say more than this for we cannot become solely animals in order to find out.All the physiological similarity in the world scratches not one jot on that. By physiological read "any similarity between man an animal that arises out of their animalness" We cannot exclude the God-made bit in order to identify suffering apart from its presence in usEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

You overlook the rather obvious fact that physiological similarities have a lot to say about the presence of physiological pain. Wishing the correlation away doesn't make it go away.I've wondered for some time what you mean by the label 'New Age' when applying it to other Christians. Now I know. By 'New Age' you mean any developments in Christian thought from the year 1000 onward. You have no patience for trendy Birkenstock-wearing hippies like Hildegard of Bingen, Francis of Assissi, Teresa of Avila, Meister Eckhart and Thomas Merton--all of whom espoused very different views from yours about the relation of human beings to other creatures on this planet.By now it's plain you do not and cannot speak for 'traditional Christianity.' You seem not to know about most of the traditions you would represent.You speak only for yourself. Truth in advertising should prompt you to admit as much._PSCome to think of it... better scratch those Birkenstocks for Francis and Teresa.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Where has Iano said anything about New Age Christianity? That's robinrohan's term. And it refers to Liberal Christianity basically, as I get it anyway, but with a 60s-70s PC terminological twist. Nothing to do with New Age, but I outgrew the above after the first couple of years of seeking. Although I love Teresa of Avila in particular, she's just too Catholic to stick to. Francis has a touching relation to Brother Animal, and I like him too. But Hildegard and Meister Eckhart and Thomas Merton are all way over the line into heresy.I now return you to your discussion of human versus animal pain.

I agree completely with Robin on this. Evolution and Biblical Christianity just do not logically mesh. His main point has to do with the contradiction between the implication in Genesis that death was introduced to the planet with the disobedience of Adam and Eve, including death to the creature when God cursed all creation for our sake, versus the evolution-based idea that death is part of the whole natural cycle that has powered evolution from one type to another. If evolution is true then the Fall can't have happened, and vice versa.

Faith: In two years you outgrew Hildegard of Bingen, Francis of Assissi, Teresa of Avila, Meister Eckhart and Thomas Merton?Wow. Plenty of intelligent people think it takes much longer than that just to understand them. But you say you outgrew them in two years.And here I was thinking you didn't believe in macroevolution. A more spiritually sophisticated dismissal can hardly be imagined. Are you saying you agree with him? Or does the fact that he is as Catholic as Teresa preclude this? Surely you know these individuals figure prominently in any informed discussion of 'traditional Christianity.' I'm going to have to ask you to support your blanket dismissal of them as heretics.Care to make your case? Or were you speaking ex cathedra?

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Given the assumptions at the outset TOEvolution + God are true there is a key difference between man and animals. So when man experiences suffering he does so from the perspective of being radically different than the animals. And whilst one might weight suffering on the basis of physiological reactions and therefore draw parallels, one does so in the dark.How does one decide that a biological machine (which is what TOE on its own says animals are) suffers? How do machines suffer? Adding God to the equation simply adds another dimension to one particular machine. These are known to suffer by themselves with themselves as evidence for it. Any extrapolation onto suffering in animals needs to overcome the problem of how one divides suffering from the self. For without such division suffering is intrinsically wrapped up in the self being around to experience it. Traditional Christianity was a term introduced to specify to a person (Robin) that what I was talking about wasn't (what Robin refers to as) New Age but included classic items such as the fall, Christs atoning sacrifice, salvation by faith alone etc.Time to shit or get off the pot Archer Edited by iano, : No reason given.

SIS!! I wanted Robin to say why he thought it was illogical not for you to prompt him with answers. Now I don't believe in Evolution for a minute but its fun to argue it.For your sins..You know that "surely die" means a spiritual death (according to traditional christianity). And that spiritual death also means the physcial death of Adam and the rest of us fallen creatures. What is incorrect with the view that in blowing Gods own life into Adam God also blew his immortality into a creature who up to that point was mortal. The gift of spiritual immortality given a particular creature who happened to be walking by ( Adam) is huge - that he be given physical immortality at that point was a necessity Edited by iano, : No reason given.